Jump to content
Shyheels

Legs-it Headline

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said:

I think both sides will be playing that game. Lots of sabre-rattling, and for some months yet. Both sides will ask for conditions they know won't be met, and maybe can't be met. Eventually, something will be offered so both sides can say they 'won' the negotiations. Sadly, The UK doesn't usually do well when negotiating, though Thatcher did better than was expected. If the UK starts off from the position there's no access to a single market outside of WTO trade tariffs and work from there, anything else is a plus.

I have my doubts the EU want WTO tariffs on either side of the import/export situation since we buy from more than we sell to. I'm wondering if VAT is/was an EU tax. Dumping that would make us VERY competitive. If I remember, the UK gets most of it, but the EU got a chunk too? No, the big worry is 3-4 million economic migrants. Europe is very happy sucking money out of the UK economy to send back home (into the EU) and would not want that to stop. Nor would many large UK businesses want their cheap employees sent back home either. High stakes for businesses then.

VAT was levied in most if not all of the EU states at the time we joined in 1973.   It was (and is) a requirement of the EU that all states had VAT and it was supposed to be closely harmonised in its application, although the rates in each country could vary.   The UK therefore introduced VAT on April Fools Day 1973 and it has grown in scope and complexity ever since.   We had to fight to get things like childrens clothes zero-rated (not supposed to be allowed under EU dictats) and are still less harmonised than most other states (thank goodness).   Whether or not we are in the EU, VAT badly needs simplification and, ideally, should be at a lower standard rate than 20%.   I am doubtful that it will be abolished, or even much simplified, as it is now too entrenched and too much of a revenue-raiser.   What would be the alternative?   (Don't forget - VAT costs registered businesses NOTHING - it is essentially a tax on consumers: us!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the UK ought to take a far more buccaneering approach. I see nothing wrong whatsoever in turning the place into an offshore tax haven. Imagine the money that would come pouring in. And the jobs from all the corporate headquarters that would be setting up here. And if that puts French and German noses out of joint, so what?

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I think the UK ought to take a far more buccaneering approach. I see nothing wrong whatsoever in turning the place into an offshore tax haven. Imagine the money that would come pouring in. And the jobs from all the corporate headquarters that would be setting up here. And if that puts French and German noses out of joint, so what?

The most compelling reason would be exactly that -  to put French and German noses out of joint!   The UK could become a high-yield (as well as high-heeled) teritory.   But - wait a minute - where would we in the UK put OUR money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That what the British Virgin Islands are for. Our money could go on the holidays we could not. 

It would get up the noses of the Americans too.

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to spread something over Drunker/Junker and Tusk ... Something made by Portland Cement.

These failed politicians are behaving as badly as any European tyrant in history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are indeed reprehensible - exactly the sort of elite autocratic emperors that have made the EU so widely loathed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of 'on thread' ..... Didn't Teresa May play something of a 'blinder' today? 

I thought after Brexit was initiated legally, 'politics' would take something of a back-seat. Not at all! It would seem that T.M. will silence all her critics and all the Remainer/SNP refuseniks in one go, with what will doubtless be a landslide vote. With no opposition of any merit, and with no time for them to prepare for a surprise General Election either, this is likely to be a one-horse-race.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No flies on Theresa May, thats for sure. Any politician with an eye to the future would have done the same thing. Clever and devastating and, as you say, will almost certainly result in a landslide vote her way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Headlines are suggesting TM is lining up a manifesto that includes; the end to free movement across UK borders, leaving the single market, and unsigning ourselves from the European Court of Justice.

Too much good news for one day, I may need to have a lie down. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't care much for Theresa May when she was home secretary and when I heard she was to become the PM I was frankly aghast, but everything she has done since then has impressed me hugely. She seems to be exactly the right person for the job. I am quite happy that she is likely be returned with a substantially increased majority and will be able to go about the task of untangling the UK from Europe with a free, firm, hand. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think she's doing a wonderful job, especially as she voted to remain. A milder version of Maggie Thatcher? A lot of people hated her but I admired her courage, and she helped get the UK out of a very large and deep hole. No, I don't want to be drawn into any heated discussion about her - just a comparison...

We should definitely campaign for zero VAT on high heels!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I didn't care much for Theresa May when she was home secretary and when I heard she was to become the PM I was frankly aghast, but everything she has done since then has impressed me hugely. She seems to be exactly the right person for the job. I am quite happy that she is likely be returned with a substantially increased majority and will be able to go about the task of untangling the UK from Europe with a free, firm, hand. 

I shared the same view, with regard to her as Home Secretary. I liked much of what she said, but was always left disappointed when 'words' were not followed up with 'actions'. I am wondering - with the benefit of hindsight, that perhaps her bosses (Cameron for example), may have toned down her (good) intentions fearing political backlash to her sometimes non-PC views? So far, she seems to doing what she promised. Novel in itself. 

 

58 minutes ago, Russ in boots said:

Yes, I think she's doing a wonderful job, especially as she voted to remain. A milder version of Maggie Thatcher? A lot of people hated her but I admired her courage, and she helped get the UK out of a very large and deep hole. No, I don't want to be drawn into any heated discussion about her - just a comparison...

We should definitely campaign for zero VAT on high heels!

I was never a fan of Thatcher, not least because back then I had slightly more left-wing views. Because of how the miners were treated, I would still dance on her grave if given a chance .... Her one redeeming action for her career was; The Falklands.

 

I don't know Teresa May is "milder". It takes a lot of courage to steer our country away from from Europe, and Teresa shows signs of 'emotional intelligence' that Thatcher lacked. I think they are both as strong as they need to be, but one was more abrasive. Had that not been the case, perhaps her own party would not have removed Thatcher from office. 

Teresa supported the 'party line' of being seen as a Remainer, but I read a report somewhere that there was some evidence her heart wasn't in it. I certainly don't remember reading her say she was disappointed with the Referendum result. I doubt she would care to admit it, but like Corbyn, I suspect many front line politicians have nationalistic views they don't declare for obvious reasons. I would imagine any practising Christian who is a member of the CoE, will likely have leanings toward nationalism, despite what an Archbishop had to say regarding his "personal" views ....

 

What is it they say about dinner-party subjects for discussion? NEVER talk about politics or religion. ;) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While talking about politics is always a potential "hot bed" of controversy, I read today Donald Trump has decided his team should leave a worldwide agreement and join Syria (at war) and Nicaragua (one of the poorest countries in the region), and it's something I'm struggling to ignore. He is citing that money spent on trying to safe-guard the world is money that should be spent on jobs for Americans. Or rather, being involved in energy saving initiatives, might cost American jobs?

I understand the notion that spending money is rarely an attractive thing to do when you don't get given something in return. From the political point of view, being one of the three countries that isn't making a charitable donation toward something that hopefully everyone will benefit from, makes you look a bit mean - a bit selfish even. Given the qualifiers of the other two countries absence (at war and dirt-poor), President Trump is making something of a name for himself throughout the world. Even China, the worst offender, has signed up to the initiative.... I read in a fairly right-wing online "news" outlet, that some Americans wholly support him. Meaning, his followers think he is doing the right thing. The same people who think America rules the world, and every other country in the world sponges off the American economy. This I feel is an "isolationist" view, of unworldly people looking out from inside a walled room. 

America is of course free to do what it wants. If it doesn't want to be part of the first "world-wide" club, then don't be. But I can't help feeling that amongst all his other controversial initiatives, this is the one that will make him unpopular with everyone on the planet except his dedicated supporters. And the trouble with being unpopular, is that when you want or need 'friends', they are less likely to oblige. Their take will be: "If you have a reputation of only looking after yourself, why would I want to help you?" And already some of his important/influential supporters are leaving his support group. A public letter addressed to him by a group of blue-chip companies have sought to change his mind. The very people he claims to represent, are asking him to stay inside the agreement.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He enjoys quite a wide following in the rust belt who believe his promises and think that he will somehow turn back the clock to 60s (or earlier) America and create exactly the sorts of jobs they and their grandparents had. The world has moved on, and by looking backwards, they are missing the opportunities presented by technology and the renewable resource industries - which will create vastly more, and better, jobs. He is abdicating leadership not just politically, but industrially as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 He is abdicating leadership not just politically, but industrially as well. 

As I understand Trumps "success", he was bailed out of bankruptcy (effectively by the US government) because the business he was running would have cost so many jobs it would have created some panic in the economy. 

To a degree, money makes money. I don't just mean as 'interest', but by investing in growth businesses. (Backing businesses that are short of cash, not short of a good product and sales orders.) So I don't believe Trump is the great businessman he eludes to be. I think he's a man with a lot of money who moves that money around. As time moves on, I'm becoming more and more convinced, he's not the man to be a President of the US of A either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite right. He's had several businesses go bankrupt, but usually makes money on his property deals which have mainly been in and around NYC. He is not by any means such a big deal that the government would not allow him to fail. Trump Inc. going down the gurgler would barely cause a ripple in the US economy. He's a billionaire property developer with a topsy turvy past. That's all.  He's not Goldman Sachs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's filed for bankruptcy 4 times,and at least twice because he borrowed significantly more than he could pay back. He refers to them not as bankruptcy but "chapter" applications. Puffer would understand it better than the both of us, but it seems Trump uses these Chapter filings for easing his way out of debt he can't afford. Some of those figures look like $3B  of debt, another was $550m of debt which I think could put a crimp in any banks funding regime. Certainly it was the case the US government was't officially the banker who allowed him to stay out of jail, but "rumour" has it, that he was allowed to carry on spending money he didn't have, carry on making losses few others would be capable of, which couldn't happen unless he had access to "gold-plated" finance. "Rumour" has it, he has friends in high places, making sure his enterprises don't fail completely.

I haven't read up much to complete this response, but every time I open an article about his financial abilities, I find the Executive Summary suggests he hasn't got any. Sure he's rich, but how much richer might he be, if he hadn't made so many bad investment decisions?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's called Chapter 11 and airlines use it all the time to trade their way out of trouble while freed from their creditors. That is nothing unusual in the states. 

Trump wouldn't have gone to jail in any event - bankruptcy itself is not a crime - and $3 billion in debt does not mean the bank lost all if it. Indeed under .Chapter 11 he may well have traded his way out in which case the banks might only have lost a bit if the interest.

sounds like the rumour mill has been working overtime. 

We'd all be richer if we'd never made any bad financial decisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 

We'd all be richer if we'd never made any bad financial decisions.

 

No one I know makes the sort of losses he has, and is seen as "successful" regardless to what rumours say. No-one else I'm aware of has managed to get so much unsupported credit outside of being a bank. He's a bad businessman. He's becoming a bad President. It may be he is the lesser of two evils (I'm no Clinton supporter either) but the Republicans have ensured a slam-dunk for the next Democrat candidate come 2020.

For me his shame started when he hustled his way between other national leaders a week or so ago to get centre stage. Now leaving the Paris Accord thinking he could railroad his own reentry terms .... He isn't a politician. He isn't worldly. He has zero emotional intelligence. He isn't a good businessman (his family money, made money regardless). With America being the second worst polluter and China the worst, he could have used that position under the Paris Accord to gain some leverage with China over NK. Nope, he sends aircraft carriers which NK and China see as provocative.

I'm not alone in thinking this man could single-handedly start WWIII. 

Anyone who could get a new business $3,000,000,000 into so quickly isn't to be trusted with a balloon, much less the codes to nuclear weapons.

And in case any readers should think otherwise, my political views are slightly right of centre. Were I American, I might well be a supporter of the Republican party, when they didn't field half-wits (Trump, Bush) with wealthy parents for presidential candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are quite a few 'colourful' businessmen, some of them billionaires, who have had wildly fluctuating careers and who enjoy a broad measure of respect and admiration. Richard Branson springs to mind, for one. Trump had the advantage of having wealthy parents, sure, but took the ball and ran with it and has far outstripped their levels of financial success. Although I doubt that he is as rich as he lets on, he is certainly a billionaire, having started out as a millionaire, and so on that level he is a successful businessman and entrepreneur, even if some of his business practices seem rather sharp.

I am by no means a Trump supporter - I think he is a disaster already as president - but one can't condemn him across the board for everything. He's made quite a tidy pile in real estate and property development. Give the devil his due. 

 

 

Edited by Shyheels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shyheels said:

I am by no means a Trump supporter - I think he is a disaster already as president - but one can't condemn him across the board for everything. He's made quite a tidy pile in real estate and property development. Give the devil his due. 

 

 

As I said to start with, money makes money, ESPECIALLY in property. (In 6 years I have almost doubled my property wealth - on paper.) I don't think he's done anything another half-wit would have done better or worse. I don't recognise any entrepreneurial flair. Put another way, if he was born dirt-poor, he might have made a reasonably successful car salesman, but little else. Yes he is (according to him) richer than he was, but given his starting point, who isn't richer? 

Richard Branson may well have filed for bankruptcy, but I am unaware of it if he has. I do know he started his entrepreneurial career aged 9, "growing" rabbits for sale. That boy was always going to make good. And he's put his money and skills to good use, doing something the world might see the benefit of, pushing the boundaries of human skill and ingenuity. Trump on the other hand, used his money to trade-up for a younger wife.

I was half-way pleased when Trump won the Presidency, because Clinton was poison. Bernie Sanders would have done better as it turns out, but the Democrats thought Clinton on the ticket was a sure-fire winner. Mistake. Trump got in because he was seen as the lesser of two evils.

Trump has been a golden chance, one not normally available to a non-politico. (Money talks.) But he's treating America like one of his businesses, and the rest of the world as 'competition'. He's turning out to be too reactionary, too insular, too self-centred to do well. He represents 300M people and looks like a fool, which of course makes the world suspect ALL Americans think and act like he does. To put it succinctly, he comes across as an oaf. True, a seemingly rich oaf, but an oaf just the same. Oops, a rich oaf with a pretty wife. (Who wears high heels.)

Edited by FastFreddy2
Grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest news .....

US Mayors will DEFY Trump and carry on meeting the terms of the Paris Accord as Michael Bloomberg pledges to give the UN $15million to cover the cost of the president's withdrawal

  • More than 1,400 mayors of US cities have formed a coalition to meet the agreements of the Paris Climate Accord 
  • On Thursday, President Trump announced US withdrawal from the 2015 pact 
  • Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Friday in Paris that his foundation would help coordinate a US effort called America's Pledge
  • Bloomberg also pledged to provide the $15million he says the UN Climate Change Secretariat will lose from President Trump's withdrawal from the pact

 

Full details of the report (worth reading) >> here <<

Trump not losing touch with reality, but reality (continuing to) lose touch with Trump. When this many elected leaders ignore your decision, you've got to ask yourself; "Was I wrong?" Trump being a (clinical example of a) megalomaniac, the thought would not occur to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...